Haque v. Unknown Party , 636 F. App'x 1003 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    SERAJUL HAQUE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    UNKNOWN PARTY, NAMED AS ‘SECRETARY OF
    GOVERNMENTS,’ BANGLADESH, GOVERNMENT
    OF, UNITED STATES, NAMED AS UNITED STATES
    GOVERMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NAMED
    AS CALIFORNIA GOVERMENT, SANTA CLARA
    COUNTY BOARD OF GOVERNMENT, FRY’S
    ELECTRONICS, INC., MMC TECHNOLOGY, ERNST
    & YOUNG, LLP, KPMG LLP, STATE OF ARIZONA,
    SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF
    GOVERNMENT, SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR
    COURT, SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT
    ATTORNEY, MILPITAS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
    SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SOCIAL
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, EQUAL
    EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
    EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, CALIFORNIA
    EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S.
    IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
    UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
    IMMIGRATION SERVICES, CALIFORNIA BOARD
    OF ACCOUNTANCY, SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF
    EDUCATION, SANTA CLARA PUBLIC DEFENDER,
    2                                    HAQUE   v. UNKNOWN PARTY
    THOMAS ORVIS, ATTORNEY MOUNTAIN VIEW-CA
    (COURT APPOINTED), DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SAN
    FRANCISCO-CALIFORNIA, ZAHIR ZEHIDI,
    ATTORNEY APPEARED IN USDOJ –EOIR
    IMMIGRATION COURT,
    Defendants-Appellees
    ______________________
    2015-1959, 2015-5142
    ______________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the
    District of Arizona in No. 2:11-cv-02130-PHX-MHB,
    Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns, and the United
    States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00565-
    MCW, Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.
    ______________________
    Decided: January 8, 2016
    ______________________
    SERAJUL HAQUE, Milpitas, CA, pro se.
    TANYA B. KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ-
    il Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
    ington, DC, for appellee United States. Also represented
    by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT
    D. AUSTIN.
    ______________________
    Before LOURIE, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Appellant Serajul Haque appeals two actions to this
    court. One involves an order from the United States
    District Court for the District of Arizona (“District Court”)
    and the other concerns a final judgment from the United
    HAQUE   v. UNKNOWN PARTY                                   3
    States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). As
    explained below, the court does not have subject matter
    jurisdiction over the appeal from the District Court and
    affirms the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss the other
    action.
    In Appeal No. 2015-1959, Mr. Haque challenges the
    District Court’s order denying his motion to transfer fifty-
    three closed cases in various courts, including the District
    Court, to the Claims Court. See generally Appellant’s
    Informal Br. 1 The District Court denied the motion
    because the proceeding in which he filed the motion—
    Haque v. United States, No. CV 11-2130-PHX-MHB (D.
    Ariz. Aug. 21, 2015)—“ha[d] been dismissed in its entire-
    ty.” Government’s App. 6. The Government contends
    that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
    over Mr. Haque’s claims. Government’s Br. 8.
    When, as here, a party challenges this court’s subject
    matter jurisdiction “based on the sufficiency of the plead-
    ing’s allegations—that is, . . . a ‘facial’ attack on the
    pleadings—then those allegations are taken as true and
    construed in a light most favorable to the complainant.”
    Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 
    11 F.3d 1573
    , 1583
    (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In the Amended
    Complaint that Mr. Haque filed in the District Court, he
    alleges statutory employment discrimination, violations of
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related
    causes of action. Government’s App. 26–37.
    This court is a court of limited jurisdiction, which does
    not include appeals of district court orders involving the
    kind of allegations proffered in Mr. Haque’s Amended
    1   Mr. Haque filed identical briefs in Appeal No.
    2015-1959 and Appeal No. 2015-5142, as did the Govern-
    ment. Consequently, we need not identify whether a
    particular filing pertains to one or both appeals.
    4                                     HAQUE   v. UNKNOWN PARTY
    Complaint. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (2012) (providing
    this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which does not
    include the claims for statutory employment discrimina-
    tion, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
    or related causes of action that Mr. Haque alleges). As a
    result, we do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
    claims alleged in Appeal No. 2015-1959 and, thus, may
    not review whether the District Court erred in denying
    Mr. Haque’s motion to transfer.
    In Appeal No. 2015-5142, Mr. Haque appeals the final
    judgment of the Claims Court dismissing his Complaint
    because he “fail[ed] to articulate a claim that is within
    th[at] [c]ourt’s jurisdiction.” Government’s App. 43. Mr.
    Haque’s Complaint states that he filed his action “pursu-
    ant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for em-
    ployment discrimination,” 
    id. at 139,
    that he seeks relief
    for failure to employ, termination of employment, failure
    to promote, and discrimination based on race or color,
    religion, sex, national origin, and age, 
    id. at 139–41,
    and
    that the alleged discriminatory acts occurred between
    1994 and 2015, 
    id. at 141.
    The Claims Court dismissed
    Mr. Haque’s action because it lacks jurisdiction to enter-
    tain “claims alleging civil rights violations.” 
    Id. at 43
    (citation omitted). Even construing the claims in the light
    most favorable to Mr. Haque, see 
    Cedars-Sinai, 11 F.3d at 1583
    , we agree with the Claims Court that it lacked
    jurisdiction over the action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295; Taylor v.
    United States, 310 F. App’x 390, 393 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
    (unpublished) (“Because Title VII vests jurisdiction over
    discrimination claims exclusively in the district court, the
    [Claims Court and, thus, this court] cannot exercise
    jurisdiction over those claims.”). Accordingly, we affirm
    the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss Mr. Haque’s action
    that resulted in Appeal No. 2015-5142.
    DISMISSED-IN-PART AND AFFIRMED-IN-PART
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-1959

Citation Numbers: 636 F. App'x 1003

Filed Date: 1/8/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023